Strange take on ownership vs usage license

[Timsup2nothin]

Aha! So you like being able to enforce your copyright but don't like it when other people enforce theirs?

I don't enforce mine. I sell stuff. If it gets copied by someone who has no respect for intellectual property that's the breaks. I know I can't stop them.

Same can be said of anyone else, but Valve preys on the false fear that widespread lack of respect for intellectual property not only exists but it can severely impact businesses and creators. They foment the false fear specifically to create the market for their product, which they then sell despite the fact that it doesn't even work. I find that despicable myself, and it has nothing to do with copyright law.

 

[Senethro]

Hence the widespread adoption of business models resistant to piracy like WoW, MMOs and F2P games. If the problem of piracy was a delusion then it was an industry wide one that loads of businesses and creators bought into and sought solutions for. Looks like a hell of a lot of money disagrees with you to some extent.

Also how can you dislike a product for what it does, and also dislike it for not working?

 

[Commodore]

I have to agree with Senethro on this one. This situation is definitely messed up, but Valve is just doing some basic CYA by taking the action that does not potentially leave them vulnerable to any kind of legal action.

Also End User License Agreements are notorious for having clauses that allow the company to alter the terms of the agreement without any prior notice to the end user. Like I said a few years ago in a thread about Steam and DRM: These terms have always been there, just nobody really noticed because software companies had no real way to enforce the EULA. Now that the technology exists to allow the enforcement of the EULA, all of a sudden people are finding out that they actually don't own the software or content they purchased.

 

[warpus]

No, it does not. People thinking they are entitled to something they are not entitled to encourages piracy.

When I say it "encourages" I don't mean "is designed and/or is the sole agent responsible for the increase of"

I just mean that it's going to push some people to piracy, for whatever reason. .. which it will. So my statement is fully accurate whether you disagree with the moral action of piracy or not. And I mean, I disagree with piracy as well, so I'm with you on that.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Also how can you dislike a product for what it does, and also dislike it for not working?

Well, since I have no problem with its theoretical purpose (prevention of intellectual property theft) I actually wouldn't have any problem with it working if it did. If someone invented a DRM system that actually worked and was transparent to legitimate users I'd be all for it. My problem with DRM is that while it does not serve the purpose it is supposed to it generates varying levels of annoyance for people who aren't doing what it is supposedly there to prevent.

Specifically with Valve, they market DRM that doesn't work to companies that in large measure only believe it is necessary because Valve has been promoting the idea that it is necessary for so long...then they enlist those DRM customers in their campaign to force people who aren't stealing anything in the first place to allow Valve's marketing software to run on their machines as a condition to use software Valve didn't really contribute anything to.

 

[Senethro]

I know its ancient history by now but I don't think Valve created or drove the narrative of piracy/DRM. At the time there was Starforce and Securom among other worse DRM methods and prior to that there were dongles, code wheels, looking up the words in manuals.

I'd also be willing to bet that Valve's immense userbase is what brings all the boys to the yard.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

<----buyer of Half-Life 2 when it was new.

I know its ancient history by now but I don't think Valve created or drove the narrative of piracy/DRM. At the time there was Starforce and Securom among other worse DRM methods and prior to that there were dongles, code wheels, looking up the words in manuals.

I'd also be willing to bet that Valve's immense userbase is what brings all the boys to the yard.

Think again. I still have the tear jerker letter from Valve in the box, explaining how they just had to create this SteamDRM thing or they wouldn't be able to stay in business in the pirate infested world and provide people with their games. This despite the fact that they had made a small mountain of money off of Half Life and piracy didn't seem to have kept them from making Half Life 2. Not long after they went on a complete recant and started talking about how Steam was really a feature laden great thing, and any resemblance to DRM was purely coincidental.

That was the first product with on-line activation DRM. It was recognized immediately as a huge step up in inconveniencing legitimate users, because at the time high speed internet access was nowhere near as common. Which is why there was an immediate flood of 'how to get the game you paid for without having to do this download nonsense' making the rounds literally everywhere...expanding the ranks of the pirate friendly by a huge margin.

Since they had done nothing really but prove that their first effort at on-line activation DRM didn't work one would think they would have quit the DRM business. However they had an angle. "Buy our DRM and your product will be instantly marketed to the customer base of Half-Life 2 players", and HL2 at the time was among the hottest sellers on the market. So even companies that recognized they were buying DRM that either wasn't necessary or at the very least demonstrably didn't work bought in.

They parleyed their DRM that didn't work into a digital distribution platform. More power to them as sharp business guys, but the whole 'by gamers for gamers' bit has always turned my stomach.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Info from another forum...not verified.

Because the game is being sold on Steam the Steam version had to be updated when the license ran out. If you bought the Steam version the agreement to retroactively remove your content is in the Steam user agreement with all the other heinous stuff in the world. As the only option would be to have two Steam versions depending on date of sale and Valve is certainly not interested in that, Steam users are screwed on this one.

 

[Senethro]

Eh, given that Steam began as a multiplayer networking and content delivery system I'm inclined to believe them. Just another case of not being able to be "underground" and successful.

Throw away the letter man. Long time to hold a weirdass grudge. Its also not related to the current issue.

 

[azzaman333]

I love the enormous outrage over the removal of a handful of songs from a game in which the music is irrelevant to the core gameplay experience. It's completely and utterly ridiculous.

 

[Wolfbeckett]

Info from another forum...not verified.

Because the game is being sold on Steam the Steam version had to be updated when the license ran out. If you bought the Steam version the agreement to retroactively remove your content is in the Steam user agreement with all the other heinous stuff in the world. As the only option would be to have two Steam versions depending on date of sale and Valve is certainly not interested in that, Steam users are screwed on this one.

Screwed until they go online and torrent the game. If I owned any Rockstar games and this happened to them I for one would have no moral quandary about doing that at all.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Eh, given that Steam began as a multiplayer networking and content delivery system I'm inclined to believe them. Just another case of not being able to be "underground" and successful.

Throw away the letter man. Long time to hold a weirdass grudge. Its also not related to the current issue.

It's just an artifact in the HL2 box. It's not like I framed it and hung it on the wall.

It does provide me great amusement every time the 'oh no, Valve didn't start Steam as DRM' business comes up though. Hook, line and sinker. Impressive how heavily they backed off their position.

 

[The_J]

I'm waiting for someone here to sue...either of these parties.
By German law you'd be allowed to return a product, if it doesn't fit the product description. Now, the product is certainly not anymore the original product, since features were removed, therefore you should be able to return it.
Not that there's a *that* high chance for it. There was already a law suit against Sony lost, when they removed features in the PS3, but well...you never know.

 

[Akka]

No, it does not. People thinking they are entitled to something they are not entitled to encourages piracy. I blame this partially on the internet in general. It seems since it rolled out, this expectation that "I want it so I deserve it so I'll steal it and screw it if that's against the law" belief has really skyrocketed.

You realize it's the opposite, and it's the copyright holders trying to steal SOLD product back because the technology allows to keep control of said products even after they have been bought ?

 

[Wolfbeckett]

You realize it's the opposite, and it's the copyright holders trying to steal SOLD product back because the technology allows to keep control of said products even after they have been bought ?

Yeah, this mindset that "The TOS says we can do this, therefore it's totally okay" is really bizarre. If a company tried to pull this crap with non digital products people would be foaming at the mouth. Imagine you wake up one morning to find that the engine from your car is missing, a note on the hood reading "Sorry, the license on this engine was up and we decided not to renew it, so you can't use it anymore. Love, Ford." But somehow when this happens with digital products everyone shrugs and says "oh well, that's how it goes." Digital games are products, and when I buy a product I expect to be able to use it for as long as I wish. The fact that they aren't a physical object doesn't change that.

 

[Senethro]

But they aren't a physical object.

I can also see your Ford example actually happening as more software gets into everything. Ford contracts out the software that optimally manages the engine for efficiency and a licensing bust up ensues years later. A big fuss will happen, 10 different countries will pass 12 different contradictory laws and everyone will ask why we weren't ready for this.

 

[Commodore]

Yeah, this mindset that "The TOS says we can do this, therefore it's totally okay" is really bizarre. If a company tried to pull this crap with non digital products people would be foaming at the mouth. Imagine you wake up one morning to find that the engine from your car is missing, a note on the hood reading "Sorry, the license on this engine was up and we decided not to renew it, so you can't use it anymore. Love, Ford." But somehow when this happens with digital products everyone shrugs and says "oh well, that's how it goes." Digital games are products, and when I buy a product I expect to be able to use it for as long as I wish. The fact that they aren't a physical object doesn't change that.

I've explained this many times before. When you buy a car, you are actually purchasing ownership rights to that particular car. When you buy software, you are not purchasing ownership rights, you are purchasing a usage license. Whether right or wrong, you do not legally own a single piece of software currently in your possession and the owner of that software reserves the right to revoke your usage license at any point without prior notice. And no, they are not obligated to refund your money either as per the terms of the EULA.

And for those that want to whine about how they didn't consent to the EULA: Yes you did. Your purchase of the software gives implied consent to the EULA, just like purchasing a plane ticket give your implied consent to any security searches of your bags or your person at the airport.

Like I have also said many times before, people never used to read the EULA on software and thought they actually owned the software they purchased simply because in the past software companies had no means to enforce the EULA. Now they do and people are starting to realize they never owned the software they purchased and are now crying foul simply because they were too absent-minded to actually read the terms they were agreeing to before they purchased the software. And you can't say you didn't have the opportunity to read the EULA before purchase either because I actually tested this out two years ago when I purchased Operation Raccoon City from Gamestop. Before I paid, I asked the employee at the register if he could open the box so I could read the EULA in the manual. He gave me a pretty weird look but ultimately complied with my request. So all you have to do is ask if you are buying a hard copy and EULAs are usually available to read before purchase online for digital copies.

 

[Wolfbeckett]

I've explained this many times before. When you buy a car, you are actually purchasing ownership rights to that particular car. When you buy software, you are not purchasing ownership rights, you are purchasing a usage license. Whether right or wrong, you do not legally own a single piece of software currently in your possession and the owner of that software reserves the right to revoke your usage license at any point without prior notice. And no, they are not obligated to refund your money either as per the terms of the EULA.

And for those that want to whine about how they didn't consent to the EULA: Yes you did. Your purchase of the software gives implied consent to the EULA, just like purchasing a plane ticket give your implied consent to any security searches of your bags or your person at the airport.

Like I have also said many times before, people never used to read the EULA on software and thought they actually owned the software they purchased simply because in the past software companies had no means to enforce the EULA. Now they do and people are starting to realize they never owned the software they purchased and are now crying foul simply because they were too absent-minded to actually read the terms they were agreeing to before they purchased the software. And you can't say you didn't have the opportunity to read the EULA before purchase either because I actually tested this out two years ago when I purchased Operation Raccoon City from Gamestop. Before I paid, I asked the employee at the register if he could open the box so I could read the EULA in the manual. He gave me a pretty weird look but ultimately complied with my request. So all you have to do is ask if you are buying a hard copy and EULAs are usually available to read before purchase online for digital copies.

And my question is why do people allow it to be this way? What makes software so different from everything else we buy that its manufacturers are able to get away with saying you don't own it even though you bought it? Again, compare it to other products. If companies that manufacture cars or televisions or any other physical product you buy tried to pull this, people would never tolerate it, and no amount of "buying the product means an implied agreement to the TOS that's inside the box" would save these companies from being sued into the ground. What makes software special that it gets to redefine the nature of ownership?

 

[bhsup]

If you hate it so much, start your own software company and make your own EULA that you think is all sunshine and bunnies. If it is so superior, clearly the people will rise up and only buy your stuff and not the competition, leading to your mega-wealth as the sole software monopoly in the world.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Whether right or wrong, you do not legally own a single piece of software currently in your possession and the owner of that software reserves the right to revoke your usage license at any point without prior notice. And no, they are not obligated to refund your money either as per the terms of the EULA.

I just checked three EULAs I have lying around and not one of them includes right to revoke without cause. They all have right to revoke if the agreement is violated by the user. So a core element of your argument doesn't appear to be valid. Purchasing an end user license is in fact just as permanent as buying a car.

Now, the Steam user agreement is reportedly a whole different kettle of fish, but since I avoid Steam like the plague I can't say.